This is bullshit. A business trying to ADD competition gets slapped with anti-competition? Give me a break America. What a farce.
How does the Agency model ADD competition among current retailers? From how it is structured it completely eliminates current retail competition and creates monopolies of the publishers involved since no one else but the publisher may sell any particular title unless there is some kind of breach of contract involved. What I mean by 'sell' is not just acting as a consignee but actively managing the price of products sold via their store to compete with other stores.
The funny thing about all of this... Apple has the ability (money) to undercut pricing that Amazon couldn't match and take a large chunk of their market share from them... but I bet Apple would've been sued by the DOJ for anti-trust there too. LOL
There are supposed to be laws that protect competition in the market place... A company is not allowed to undercut pricing to the point that other competitors cannot sustain a business... And yet this is exactly what Amazon has been doing.
I understand there are also laws to protect consumers from being forced to overpay for a certain type of product, this is why we have collusion laws, but book prices DID NOT GO UP after Apple entered the market, they went back to their NORMAL prices before Amazon ransacked the market.
The fact that this judge is too short-sighted to see that is just ignorant.
The problem with this is that Amazon only had "loss-leader" prices for a select few titles and then only for a couple weeks before returning those titles to competitive prices. That those titles were newly announced best sellers does not make a difference since the ebook segment of Amazon has been shown to make a profit from the back-list ebooks that are usually associated with those bestsellers as well as independent ebooks sold via Amazon. Now if Apple had gone and made ALL ebooks sold at cut-throat prices to compete with Amazon that would be against the law since you are taking a TOTAL loss on that segment of your business in order to push competitors out of business. What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features compared to TXT, EPUB, etc. There is some value in the format and Apple chooses not to use the features in their own iBook format to compete. Also Amazon has Apps across multiple platforms to allow you to consume ebooks formatted in Kindle format, something Apple continues to refuse to do.
The problem with this is that Amazon only had "loss-leader" prices for a select few titles and then only for a couple weeks before returning those titles to competitive prices. That those titles were newly announced best sellers does not make a difference since the ebook segment of Amazon has been shown to make a profit from the back-list ebooks that are usually associated with those bestsellers as well as independent ebooks sold via Amazon. Now if Apple had gone and made ALL ebooks sold at cut-throat prices to compete with Amazon that would be against the law since you are taking a TOTAL loss on that segment of your business in order to push competitors out of business. What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features compared to TXT, EPUB, etc. There is some value in the format and Apple chooses not to use the features in their own iBook format to compete. Also Amazon has Apps across multiple platforms to allow you to consume ebooks formatted in Kindle format, something Apple continues to refuse to do.
The iPad and iBooks brought colour and illustrations to iBooks when Amazon still had black and white bastardised PDFs.
Torrents are cheapest therefore "best" for consumers, why doesn't the DoJ support them?
This is one of the many damn misconceptions with this case. Apple coming into the picture to compete and offer alternative pricing to Amazon...prices for ebooks went up because publishers now sets the prices via agency model. So what is the problem? Are you insisting publishers can't set their own price but it's okay for Amazon to sell at a lose or little gain? I sense this judge don't have a clue of where the technology is heading regarding e-commerce.
Let's pretend ebooks are groceries for a second, anyone have a problem with one store selling same goods at higher price than another? What about another store 2 miles out matching the same price? or a higher in the middle of nowhere selling at prices much higher than within a crowded town? Ever go on a vacation or tourist trap towns and paid a few dollars more for same bottle of water that you would otherwise get for much less??? Should we start suing everyone and say there is collusion?
IMHO, this judge failed in an epic way to put everything into context. All she did is blame Apple for providing an e-commerce environment for publishers to "collude". So why don't we find gun manufacturers guilty for gun and war crimes? or alcohol manufacturer for DUI? or soft drinks and snack manufacturers for obesity and health issues?
The problem with comparing eBooks to groceries is that groceries are commodities, easily replaced by another product of the same type. Books are not (yet) commodities for the average reader.
The problem with comparing eBooks to groceries is that groceries are commodities, easily replaced by another product of the same type. Books are not (yet) commodities for the average reader.
Just pray Samsung does not enter the books market.
How does the Agency model ADD competition among current retailers? From how it is structured it completely eliminates current retail competition and creates monopolies of the publishers involved since no one else but the publisher may sell any particular title unless there is some kind of breach of contract involved. What I mean by 'sell' is not just acting as a consignee but actively managing the price of products sold via their store to compete with other stores.
I'm not sure whether a spambot initially bumped the thread, but it seems a little odd that you responded with this a year later. I clicked thinking there was some new development that had yet to make it into an article. Their case didn't seem to pivot on whether it added competition. It did involve whether Apple's policies enabled collusion between competitors. I am more skeptical over how it was handled than whether Apple ran afoul of antitrust laws here.
But you are missing the point here. The price you pay for an eBook has at least 2 components: the cost that is paid to the author/publisher, and the cost that is 'siphoned off' by the distributor. The price matching you are talking about is all about price competition among distributors who are competing for your business, not price competition driven by authors or even the publishers. The distributors add no value to the product itself other than providing authors with access to buyers. And in the case of electronic products, like eBooks and software, Apple's stores offer by far the most efficient way of distributing electronic products to a global market. B&N and Amazon just can't compete with the distribution model created by Apple. Their outdated business model, involving price competition on distribution only, should not be protected by the DoJ.
I'm sorry, I fail to see how Apple's distribution model is more efficient than Amazon's distribution model concerning ebooks. If anything Amazon's model is more efficient since it reaches not only iDevices via an App but the Amazon model is accessible through their proprietary Kindle but also a much larger set of devices via browser and Apps which include iDevices as a subset.
I'm sure they could try, but I would hope they would create a nice ebook format that has great features competitive to what already exists.. Price for ebooks should not just be for the base content but also how useful the features added via the specific format is to the consumer.
Perhaps, but the case was not about pricing based on features but of alleged price fixing collusion. Regardless of the final outcome of this entire situation it should not prevent anyone from promoting the benefits of their particular ebook format. iBooks, if found to be beneficial by the consumer even at a higher price, should be well able to compete.
...What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xennex
Perhaps, but the case was not about pricing based on features but of alleged price fixing collusion. Regardless of the final outcome of this entire situation it should not prevent anyone from promoting the benefits of their particular ebook format. iBooks, if found to be beneficial by the consumer even at a higher price, should be well able to compete.
You brought it up.
Apple's product was differentiated, Cote treated it the same as Amazon's and refused to factor that into the pricing in her salivating, over-eager witch hunt.
Apple's product was differentiated, Cote treated it the same as Amazon's and refused to factor that into the pricing in her salivating, over-eager witch hunt.
The appeal is where Apple will get justice.
I think my point is that Apple did not try to compete in the ebook market primarily using the benefits of their iBook format, relying rather on a contract for Agency pricing and a MFN clause. If what was stated in this article (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) is true, Apple as a large competitor could have just refused Agency pricing and avoided this whole mess.
I think my point is that Apple did not try to compete in the ebook market primarily using the benefits of their iBook format, relying rather on a contract for Agency pricing and a MFN clause. If what was stated in this article (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) is true, Apple as a large competitor could have just refused Agency pricing and avoided this whole mess.
When Apple launched the iPad and iBooks "Winnie the Pooh" was included for free because of it's full colour illustrations and curling of the top corner when flipping a page using a touch based interface.
Thus iBooks was launched showing the difference.
Eddie Cue testified as such, testimony which was ignored.
At the time the kindle was a black and white screen controlled by buttons.
When Apple launched the iPad and iBooks "Winnie the Pooh" was included for free because of it's full colour illustrations and curling of the top corner when flipping a page using a touch based interface.
Thus iBooks was launched showing the difference.
Eddie Cue testified as such, testimony which was ignored.
At the time the kindle was a black and white screen controlled by buttons.
I see.. Then you're saying Apple was not confident that showing the benefits of the iBook format would not be enough to take any significant marketshare from Amazon so decided to go with the Agent model and add a MFN clause forcing a leveling of any single title to simply features of each respective format and completely ELIMINATE retail price competition across ALL ebook formats.
I see.. Then you're saying Apple was not confident that showing the benefits of the iBook format would not be enough to take any significant marketshare from Amazon so decided to go with the Agent model and add a MFN clause forcing a leveling of any single title to simply features of each respective format and completely ELIMINATE retail price competition across ALL ebook formats.
Comments
it sure seems that way.
This is bullshit. A business trying to ADD competition gets slapped with anti-competition? Give me a break America. What a farce.
How does the Agency model ADD competition among current retailers? From how it is structured it completely eliminates current retail competition and creates monopolies of the publishers involved since no one else but the publisher may sell any particular title unless there is some kind of breach of contract involved. What I mean by 'sell' is not just acting as a consignee but actively managing the price of products sold via their store to compete with other stores.
The funny thing about all of this... Apple has the ability (money) to undercut pricing that Amazon couldn't match and take a large chunk of their market share from them... but I bet Apple would've been sued by the DOJ for anti-trust there too. LOL
There are supposed to be laws that protect competition in the market place... A company is not allowed to undercut pricing to the point that other competitors cannot sustain a business... And yet this is exactly what Amazon has been doing.
I understand there are also laws to protect consumers from being forced to overpay for a certain type of product, this is why we have collusion laws, but book prices DID NOT GO UP after Apple entered the market, they went back to their NORMAL prices before Amazon ransacked the market.
The fact that this judge is too short-sighted to see that is just ignorant.
The problem with this is that Amazon only had "loss-leader" prices for a select few titles and then only for a couple weeks before returning those titles to competitive prices. That those titles were newly announced best sellers does not make a difference since the ebook segment of Amazon has been shown to make a profit from the back-list ebooks that are usually associated with those bestsellers as well as independent ebooks sold via Amazon. Now if Apple had gone and made ALL ebooks sold at cut-throat prices to compete with Amazon that would be against the law since you are taking a TOTAL loss on that segment of your business in order to push competitors out of business. What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features compared to TXT, EPUB, etc. There is some value in the format and Apple chooses not to use the features in their own iBook format to compete. Also Amazon has Apps across multiple platforms to allow you to consume ebooks formatted in Kindle format, something Apple continues to refuse to do.
The problem with this is that Amazon only had "loss-leader" prices for a select few titles and then only for a couple weeks before returning those titles to competitive prices. That those titles were newly announced best sellers does not make a difference since the ebook segment of Amazon has been shown to make a profit from the back-list ebooks that are usually associated with those bestsellers as well as independent ebooks sold via Amazon. Now if Apple had gone and made ALL ebooks sold at cut-throat prices to compete with Amazon that would be against the law since you are taking a TOTAL loss on that segment of your business in order to push competitors out of business. What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features compared to TXT, EPUB, etc. There is some value in the format and Apple chooses not to use the features in their own iBook format to compete. Also Amazon has Apps across multiple platforms to allow you to consume ebooks formatted in Kindle format, something Apple continues to refuse to do.
The iPad and iBooks brought colour and illustrations to iBooks when Amazon still had black and white bastardised PDFs.
Torrents are cheapest therefore "best" for consumers, why doesn't the DoJ support them?
This is one of the many damn misconceptions with this case. Apple coming into the picture to compete and offer alternative pricing to Amazon...prices for ebooks went up because publishers now sets the prices via agency model. So what is the problem? Are you insisting publishers can't set their own price but it's okay for Amazon to sell at a lose or little gain? I sense this judge don't have a clue of where the technology is heading regarding e-commerce.
Let's pretend ebooks are groceries for a second, anyone have a problem with one store selling same goods at higher price than another? What about another store 2 miles out matching the same price? or a higher in the middle of nowhere selling at prices much higher than within a crowded town? Ever go on a vacation or tourist trap towns and paid a few dollars more for same bottle of water that you would otherwise get for much less??? Should we start suing everyone and say there is collusion?
IMHO, this judge failed in an epic way to put everything into context. All she did is blame Apple for providing an e-commerce environment for publishers to "collude". So why don't we find gun manufacturers guilty for gun and war crimes? or alcohol manufacturer for DUI? or soft drinks and snack manufacturers for obesity and health issues?
The problem with comparing eBooks to groceries is that groceries are commodities, easily replaced by another product of the same type. Books are not (yet) commodities for the average reader.
The problem with comparing eBooks to groceries is that groceries are commodities, easily replaced by another product of the same type. Books are not (yet) commodities for the average reader.
Just pray Samsung does not enter the books market.
How does the Agency model ADD competition among current retailers? From how it is structured it completely eliminates current retail competition and creates monopolies of the publishers involved since no one else but the publisher may sell any particular title unless there is some kind of breach of contract involved. What I mean by 'sell' is not just acting as a consignee but actively managing the price of products sold via their store to compete with other stores.
I'm not sure whether a spambot initially bumped the thread, but it seems a little odd that you responded with this a year later. I clicked thinking there was some new development that had yet to make it into an article. Their case didn't seem to pivot on whether it added competition. It did involve whether Apple's policies enabled collusion between competitors. I am more skeptical over how it was handled than whether Apple ran afoul of antitrust laws here.
But you are missing the point here. The price you pay for an eBook has at least 2 components: the cost that is paid to the author/publisher, and the cost that is 'siphoned off' by the distributor. The price matching you are talking about is all about price competition among distributors who are competing for your business, not price competition driven by authors or even the publishers. The distributors add no value to the product itself other than providing authors with access to buyers. And in the case of electronic products, like eBooks and software, Apple's stores offer by far the most efficient way of distributing electronic products to a global market. B&N and Amazon just can't compete with the distribution model created by Apple. Their outdated business model, involving price competition on distribution only, should not be protected by the DoJ.
I'm sorry, I fail to see how Apple's distribution model is more efficient than Amazon's distribution model concerning ebooks. If anything Amazon's model is more efficient since it reaches not only iDevices via an App but the Amazon model is accessible through their proprietary Kindle but also a much larger set of devices via browser and Apps which include iDevices as a subset.
Not a spambot.. Just getting through old email..
I'm sure they could try, but I would hope they would create a nice ebook format that has great features competitive to what already exists.. Price for ebooks should not just be for the base content but also how useful the features added via the specific format is to the consumer.
The iPad and iBooks brought colour and illustrations to iBooks when Amazon still had black and white bastardised PDFs.
Torrents are cheapest therefore "best" for consumers, why doesn't the DoJ support them?
Yes, and it's unfortunate Apple chose not to pursue promoting and enhancing the ebooks sold in iBook format to compete.
Yes, and it's unfortunate Apple chose not to pursue promoting and enhancing the ebooks sold in iBook format to compete.
They did, Cote the puppet refused to listen.
They did, Cote the puppet refused to listen.
Perhaps, but the case was not about pricing based on features but of alleged price fixing collusion. Regardless of the final outcome of this entire situation it should not prevent anyone from promoting the benefits of their particular ebook format. iBooks, if found to be beneficial by the consumer even at a higher price, should be well able to compete.
...What a lot of people fail to see is that Amazon sells KINDLE formatted books with its own set of distinguishing features...
Perhaps, but the case was not about pricing based on features but of alleged price fixing collusion. Regardless of the final outcome of this entire situation it should not prevent anyone from promoting the benefits of their particular ebook format. iBooks, if found to be beneficial by the consumer even at a higher price, should be well able to compete.
You brought it up.
Apple's product was differentiated, Cote treated it the same as Amazon's and refused to factor that into the pricing in her salivating, over-eager witch hunt.
The appeal is where Apple will get justice.
You brought it up.
Apple's product was differentiated, Cote treated it the same as Amazon's and refused to factor that into the pricing in her salivating, over-eager witch hunt.
The appeal is where Apple will get justice.
I think my point is that Apple did not try to compete in the ebook market primarily using the benefits of their iBook format, relying rather on a contract for Agency pricing and a MFN clause. If what was stated in this article (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) is true, Apple as a large competitor could have just refused Agency pricing and avoided this whole mess.
I think my point is that Apple did not try to compete in the ebook market primarily using the benefits of their iBook format, relying rather on a contract for Agency pricing and a MFN clause. If what was stated in this article (http://tidbits.com/article/13912) is true, Apple as a large competitor could have just refused Agency pricing and avoided this whole mess.
When Apple launched the iPad and iBooks "Winnie the Pooh" was included for free because of it's full colour illustrations and curling of the top corner when flipping a page using a touch based interface.
Thus iBooks was launched showing the difference.
Eddie Cue testified as such, testimony which was ignored.
At the time the kindle was a black and white screen controlled by buttons.
When Apple launched the iPad and iBooks "Winnie the Pooh" was included for free because of it's full colour illustrations and curling of the top corner when flipping a page using a touch based interface.
Thus iBooks was launched showing the difference.
Eddie Cue testified as such, testimony which was ignored.
At the time the kindle was a black and white screen controlled by buttons.
I see.. Then you're saying Apple was not confident that showing the benefits of the iBook format would not be enough to take any significant marketshare from Amazon so decided to go with the Agent model and add a MFN clause forcing a leveling of any single title to simply features of each respective format and completely ELIMINATE retail price competition across ALL ebook formats.
I see.. Then you're saying Apple was not confident that showing the benefits of the iBook format would not be enough to take any significant marketshare from Amazon so decided to go with the Agent model and add a MFN clause forcing a leveling of any single title to simply features of each respective format and completely ELIMINATE retail price competition across ALL ebook formats.
No.
You can't open a store without any stock.
Not a spambot.. Just getting through old email..
Oh I thought it might have been bumped by something now deleted. Now I'm curious what has happened with that case.
No.
You can't open a store without any stock.
True, but what does having stock to sell have to do with choosing Agency over Wholesale?